Westboro Baptist Church: Where's The Outrage?

[strollingbones]

so you have done nothing...but try to make yourself look good for being a conservative?

I thought I answered this question yesterday.

Do you have Alzheimers' desease or something?

nice shot there mud...shows your true nature

no i dont have alzheimers thank you....

where did you answer that question....i have not read all this tread...

seems all you have said is your right and everyone else needs to 'poopie'

but real nice shot...considering what i am going thru with a family member who has alzheimers...

 

[Father Time]

I keep wondering why the left hasn't lashed out at these freaks. They're extremist Christians that pretty much exemplify everything the left hates about Christianity yet I see nobody here complaining about them.

I wonder why that is?

Because they've been doing this for a long time, they're old news. That's why.

I've seen people on all sides bashing these guys and if you haven't well you must be living under a rock.

Not stop with this dishonest crap.

What's dishonest.....that they're scum or that I think the left doesn't care enough to complain?

The second one. Like I said if you think the left never complains about these guys you must be living under a fucking rock.

I floated this because I wanted to hear what was the deal with the left. What I got was a bunch of insults. It's impossible to talk to the left without them breaking into an insult fest.

In other words you trolled, people got angry, now you want to act like some innocent bystander who was only asking questions.

Sorry, not falling for it.

 

[mudwhistle]

so you have done nothing...but try to make yourself look good for being a conservative?

I thought I answered this question yesterday.

Do you have Alzheimers' desease or something?

nice shot there mud...shows your true nature

no i dont have alzheimers thank you....

where did you answer that question....i have not read all this tread...

seems all you have said is your right and everyone else needs to 'poopie'

but real nice shot...considering what i am going thru with a family member who has alzheimers...

After the unfair neg-rep you can go find it yourself.

My sympathy goes out to your mom.

 

[mudwhistle]

Because they've been doing this for a long time, they're old news. That's why.

I've seen people on all sides bashing these guys and if you haven't well you must be living under a rock.

Not stop with this dishonest crap.

What's dishonest.....that they're scum or that I think the left doesn't care enough to complain?

The second one. Like I said if you think the left never complains about these guys you must be living under a fucking rock.

I floated this because I wanted to hear what was the deal with the left. What I got was a bunch of insults. It's impossible to talk to the left without them breaking into an insult fest.

In other words you trolled, people got angry, now you want to act like some innocent bystander who was only asking questions.

Sorry, not falling for it.

Trolling is going around acting like del or shaman; Pouncing on every weakness and never responding in a coherent manner to questions.

I voiced a controversial opinion. I wanted a discussion on the merits of that opinion or the lack of but instead got an insult fest. I have an open mind and I am willing to listen to rational viewpoints...but I refuse to listen to arguments that amount to "You're and idiot" or "You suck".

If people want to get angry that's their problem. I don't take it personal as long as they're willing to listen to my viewpoint when I make valid points. I would rather stir things up a bit then sit and watch my questions go unanswered because I didn't force a response. Nothing is worse then a thread that goes nowhere because the OP was too bland.

 

[goldcatt]

What's dishonest.....that they're scum or that I think the left doesn't care enough to complain?

The second one. Like I said if you think the left never complains about these guys you must be living under a fucking rock.

I floated this because I wanted to hear what was the deal with the left. What I got was a bunch of insults. It's impossible to talk to the left without them breaking into an insult fest.

In other words you trolled, people got angry, now you want to act like some innocent bystander who was only asking questions.

Sorry, not falling for it.

Trolling is going around acting like del shaman. Pouncing on every weakness and never responding in a coherent manner to questions.

I voiced a controversial opinion. I wanted a discussion on the merits of that opinion or the lack of but instead got an insult fest. I have an open mind and I am willing to listen to rational viewpoints...but I refuse to listen to arguments that amount to "You're and idiot" or "You suck".

If people want to get angry that's their problem. I don't take it personal as long as they're willing to listen to my viewpoint when I make valid points. I would rather stir things up a bit then sit and watch my questions go unanswered because I didn't force a response. Nothing is worse then a thread that goes nowhere because the OP was too bland.

You might have gone a tad overboard there. When you're projecting an emotionally charged position onto a large number of people who don't actually hold it they might reasonably be expected to object - strenuously. Just an observation.

 

[mudwhistle]

The second one. Like I said if you think the left never complains about these guys you must be living under a fucking rock.



In other words you trolled, people got angry, now you want to act like some innocent bystander who was only asking questions.

Sorry, not falling for it.

Trolling is going around acting like del shaman. Pouncing on every weakness and never responding in a coherent manner to questions.

I voiced a controversial opinion. I wanted a discussion on the merits of that opinion or the lack of but instead got an insult fest. I have an open mind and I am willing to listen to rational viewpoints...but I refuse to listen to arguments that amount to "You're and idiot" or "You suck".

If people want to get angry that's their problem. I don't take it personal as long as they're willing to listen to my viewpoint when I make valid points. I would rather stir things up a bit then sit and watch my questions go unanswered because I didn't force a response. Nothing is worse then a thread that goes nowhere because the OP was too bland.

You might have gone a tad overboard there. When you're projecting an emotionally charged position onto a large number of people who don't actually hold it they might reasonably be expected to object - strenuously. Just an observation.

Like I stated earlier...it was intended to be "If the shoe fits".

Usually I handle those by just reading it and going on to the next thread.

Seriously...I was amazed at the response but folks like goeuxtohell let me know I was right in his case even though he refuses to admit it.


One thing I find I need to mention; Most of the time when I say Liberals or Democrats I'm speaking of the folks in Congress and the nut jobs in San Francisco.

 

[goldcatt]

Trolling is going around acting like del shaman. Pouncing on every weakness and never responding in a coherent manner to questions.

I voiced a controversial opinion. I wanted a discussion on the merits of that opinion or the lack of but instead got an insult fest. I have an open mind and I am willing to listen to rational viewpoints...but I refuse to listen to arguments that amount to "You're and idiot" or "You suck".

If people want to get angry that's their problem. I don't take it personal as long as they're willing to listen to my viewpoint when I make valid points. I would rather stir things up a bit then sit and watch my questions go unanswered because I didn't force a response. Nothing is worse then a thread that goes nowhere because the OP was too bland.

You might have gone a tad overboard there. When you're projecting an emotionally charged position onto a large number of people who don't actually hold it they might reasonably be expected to object - strenuously. Just an observation.

Like I state earlier...it was intended to be "If the shoe fits".

Usually I handle those by just reading it and going on to the next thread.

Seriously...I was amazed at the response but folks like goeuxtohell let me know I was right in his case even though he refuses to admit it.


One thing I find I need to mention. Most of the time when I say Liberals or Democrats I'm speaking of the folks in Congress and the nut jobs in San Francisco.

I have no idea how most of the Dems in Congress think about the case - I know some have come out in support of Petitioners, but only in vague terms and an obvious attempt to be "against" WBC. As far as addressing the actual issues, nobody's done it to my knowledge. Can't really blame them though, what Congresscritter wants to be talking about Hustler magazine in any terms less than a month before Election Day?

 

[mudwhistle]

You might have gone a tad overboard there. When you're projecting an emotionally charged position onto a large number of people who don't actually hold it they might reasonably be expected to object - strenuously. Just an observation.

Like I state earlier...it was intended to be "If the shoe fits".

Usually I handle those by just reading it and going on to the next thread.

Seriously...I was amazed at the response but folks like goeuxtohell let me know I was right in his case even though he refuses to admit it.


One thing I find I need to mention. Most of the time when I say Liberals or Democrats I'm speaking of the folks in Congress and the nut jobs in San Francisco.

I have no idea how most of the Dems in Congress think about the case - I know some have come out in support of Petitioners, but only in vague terms and an obvious attempt to be "against" WBC. As far as addressing the actual issues, nobody's done it to my knowledge. Can't really blame them though, what Congresscritter wants to be talking about Hustler magazine in any terms less than a month before Election Day?

I was interested in what the Liberals here felt about it, but I felt that the Dems aren't about to do anything because the issue helps them.

 

[goldcatt]

Like I state earlier...it was intended to be "If the shoe fits".

Usually I handle those by just reading it and going on to the next thread.

Seriously...I was amazed at the response but folks like goeuxtohell let me know I was right in his case even though he refuses to admit it.


One thing I find I need to mention. Most of the time when I say Liberals or Democrats I'm speaking of the folks in Congress and the nut jobs in San Francisco.

I have no idea how most of the Dems in Congress think about the case - I know some have come out in support of Petitioners, but only in vague terms and an obvious attempt to be "against" WBC. As far as addressing the actual issues, nobody's done it to my knowledge. Can't really blame them though, what Congresscritter wants to be talking about Hustler magazine in any terms less than a month before Election Day?

I was interested in what the Liberals here felt about it, but I felt that the Dems aren't about to do anything because the issue helps them.

If you mean the traditional Liberal position on free speech, then yes - a Snyder win could cause serious restrictions on free speech, depending on which arguments prevailed and how broad the Court decided to go. No matter how narrow, it would be a worrisome expansion of a tort that can be easily abused - so easily that it isn't even recognized in some States, and others require a behavioral component in addition to mere speech.

It becomes even more troubling to think about with the breadth of the arguments Petitioner is making. And when you combine that with the lack of a requested remedy that will actually keep WBC away from funerals.....yep, I can't imagine why a Liberal would support a Snyder victory in this particular case once they've become familiar with the facts.

But that has nothing to do with WBC or DADT, and everything to do with civil liberties.

A different case....you'd probably have a different attitude.

 

[mudwhistle]

I have no idea how most of the Dems in Congress think about the case - I know some have come out in support of Petitioners, but only in vague terms and an obvious attempt to be "against" WBC. As far as addressing the actual issues, nobody's done it to my knowledge. Can't really blame them though, what Congresscritter wants to be talking about Hustler magazine in any terms less than a month before Election Day?

I was interested in what the Liberals here felt about it, but I felt that the Dems aren't about to do anything because the issue helps them.

If you mean the traditional Liberal position on free speech, then yes - a Snyder win could cause serious restrictions on free speech, depending on which arguments prevailed and how broad the Court decided to go. No matter how narrow, it would be a worrisome expansion of a tort that can be easily abused - so easily that it isn't even recognized in some States, and others require a behavioral component in addition to mere speech.

It becomes even more troubling to think about with the breadth of the arguments Petitioner is making. And when you combine that with the lack of a requested remedy that will actually keep WBC away from funerals.....yep, I can't imagine why a Liberal would support a Snyder victory in this particular case once they've become familiar with the facts.

But that has nothing to do with WBC or DADT, and everything to do with civil liberties.

A different case....you'd probably have a different attitude.

I think everyone would.

I keep remembering the tiff over the Ground Zero mosque. It seemed so senseless. This seemed kind of similar but I guess it isn't now that I look at the case closer.

 

[goldcatt]

I was interested in what the Liberals here felt about it, but I felt that the Dems aren't about to do anything because the issue helps them.

If you mean the traditional Liberal position on free speech, then yes - a Snyder win could cause serious restrictions on free speech, depending on which arguments prevailed and how broad the Court decided to go. No matter how narrow, it would be a worrisome expansion of a tort that can be easily abused - so easily that it isn't even recognized in some States, and others require a behavioral component in addition to mere speech.

It becomes even more troubling to think about with the breadth of the arguments Petitioner is making. And when you combine that with the lack of a requested remedy that will actually keep WBC away from funerals.....yep, I can't imagine why a Liberal would support a Snyder victory in this particular case once they've become familiar with the facts.

But that has nothing to do with WBC or DADT, and everything to do with civil liberties.

A different case....you'd probably have a different attitude.

I think everyone would.

I keep remembering the tiff over the Ground Zero mosque. It seemed so senseless. This seemed kind of similar but I guess it isn't now that I look at the case closer.

I've seen some of the media reports. Nothing as black and white as they present it with their "sexy" headlines and out of context quotes goes to the Supreme Court level.

I saw an MSNBC story quoting Mr. Snyder with the line about WBC taking away his chance to bury his son...but no mention he testified in court that he did not even know WBC was at the funeral till after the fact. WTF? Context matters. And this is a complex case invoking every First Amendment right in one way or another.

Now the first case that comes along with a family who were actually subjected to WBC's bullshit at the service and asks for a mandatory buffer zone around funerals...I'm all over it.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you mean the traditional Liberal position on free speech, then yes - a Snyder win could cause serious restrictions on free speech, depending on which arguments prevailed and how broad the Court decided to go. No matter how narrow, it would be a worrisome expansion of a tort that can be easily abused - so easily that it isn't even recognized in some States, and others require a behavioral component in addition to mere speech.

It becomes even more troubling to think about with the breadth of the arguments Petitioner is making. And when you combine that with the lack of a requested remedy that will actually keep WBC away from funerals.....yep, I can't imagine why a Liberal would support a Snyder victory in this particular case once they've become familiar with the facts.

But that has nothing to do with WBC or DADT, and everything to do with civil liberties.

A different case....you'd probably have a different attitude.

I think everyone would.

I keep remembering the tiff over the Ground Zero mosque. It seemed so senseless. This seemed kind of similar but I guess it isn't now that I look at the case closer.

I've seen some of the media reports. Nothing as black and white as they present it with their "sexy" headlines and out of context quotes goes to the Supreme Court level.

I saw an MSNBC story quoting Mr. Snyder with the line about WBC taking away his chance to bury his son...but no mention he testified in court that he did not even know WBC was at the funeral till after the fact. WTF? Context matters. And this is a complex case invoking every First Amendment right in one way or another.

Now the first case that comes along with a family who were actually subjected to WBC's bullshit at the service and asks for a mandatory buffer zone around funerals...I'm all over it.

I hope so.

I remember seeing Mr Snyder on Fox News a couple of weeks ago. He didn't seem real to me. Can't explain why exactly. Maybe his stuttering and eye-blinking made me wonder.

 

[goldcatt]

I think everyone would.

I keep remembering the tiff over the Ground Zero mosque. It seemed so senseless. This seemed kind of similar but I guess it isn't now that I look at the case closer.

I've seen some of the media reports. Nothing as black and white as they present it with their "sexy" headlines and out of context quotes goes to the Supreme Court level.

I saw an MSNBC story quoting Mr. Snyder with the line about WBC taking away his chance to bury his son...but no mention he testified in court that he did not even know WBC was at the funeral till after the fact. WTF? Context matters. And this is a complex case invoking every First Amendment right in one way or another.

Now the first case that comes along with a family who were actually subjected to WBC's bullshit at the service and asks for a mandatory buffer zone around funerals...I'm all over it.

I hope so.

I remember seeing him on Fox News a couple of weeks ago. He didn't seem real to me. Can't explain why exactly. Maybe his stuttering and eye-blinking made me wonder.

Who, Mr. Snyder? I doubt he has any underhanded agenda here, I know I mentioned revenge but who wouldn't want to make those bastards pay if it were their son's funeral? And he's not accustomed to the national spotlight. I'd not judge him by his mannerisms on national tv. This isn't about bashing the guy, his lawyer should have looked at these facts and at minimum constructed a case that fit them. But he IS an interested party, and that means he's not going to give both sides of the story.

 

[mudwhistle]

I've seen some of the media reports. Nothing as black and white as they present it with their "sexy" headlines and out of context quotes goes to the Supreme Court level.

I saw an MSNBC story quoting Mr. Snyder with the line about WBC taking away his chance to bury his son...but no mention he testified in court that he did not even know WBC was at the funeral till after the fact. WTF? Context matters. And this is a complex case invoking every First Amendment right in one way or another.

Now the first case that comes along with a family who were actually subjected to WBC's bullshit at the service and asks for a mandatory buffer zone around funerals...I'm all over it.

I hope so.

I remember seeing him on Fox News a couple of weeks ago. He didn't seem real to me. Can't explain why exactly. Maybe his stuttering and eye-blinking made me wonder.

Who, Mr. Snyder? I doubt he has any underhanded agenda here, I know I mentioned revenge but who wouldn't want to make those bastards pay if it were their son's funeral? And he's not accustomed to the national spotlight. I'd not judge him by his mannerisms on national tv. This isn't about bashing the guy, his lawyer should have looked at these facts and at minimum constructed a case that fit them. But he IS an interested party, and that means he's not going to give both sides of the story.

That was my first assumption...that he wasn't used to the cameras and he was nervous. I just felt he should have been more like Fred Goldman. If it was my kid's funeral I would have been spitting mad. Course I never would have brought a suit after only seeing a news broadcast.

 

[goldcatt]

I hope so.

I remember seeing him on Fox News a couple of weeks ago. He didn't seem real to me. Can't explain why exactly. Maybe his stuttering and eye-blinking made me wonder.

Who, Mr. Snyder? I doubt he has any underhanded agenda here, I know I mentioned revenge but who wouldn't want to make those bastards pay if it were their son's funeral? And he's not accustomed to the national spotlight. I'd not judge him by his mannerisms on national tv. This isn't about bashing the guy, his lawyer should have looked at these facts and at minimum constructed a case that fit them. But he IS an interested party, and that means he's not going to give both sides of the story.

That was my first assumption...that he wasn't used to the cameras and he was nervous. I just felt he should have been more like Fred Goldman. If it was my kid's funeral I would have been spitting mad. Course I never would have brought a suit after only seeing a news broadcast.

Or trying to claim millions for looking up their website. Which is why I keep coming back to this being the wrong case. Right people to go after, but a really bad case to do it with.

 

[mudwhistle]

Who, Mr. Snyder? I doubt he has any underhanded agenda here, I know I mentioned revenge but who wouldn't want to make those bastards pay if it were their son's funeral? And he's not accustomed to the national spotlight. I'd not judge him by his mannerisms on national tv. This isn't about bashing the guy, his lawyer should have looked at these facts and at minimum constructed a case that fit them. But he IS an interested party, and that means he's not going to give both sides of the story.

That was my first assumption...that he wasn't used to the cameras and he was nervous. I just felt he should have been more like Fred Goldman. If it was my kid's funeral I would have been spitting mad. Course I never would have brought a suit after only seeing a news broadcast.

Or trying to claim millions for looking up their website. Which is why I keep coming back to this being the wrong case. Right people to go after, but a really bad case to do it with.

Yeah.....son of a biatch.

 

[goldcatt]

That was my first assumption...that he wasn't used to the cameras and he was nervous. I just felt he should have been more like Fred Goldman. If it was my kid's funeral I would have been spitting mad. Course I never would have brought a suit after only seeing a news broadcast.

Or trying to claim millions for looking up their website. Which is why I keep coming back to this being the wrong case. Right people to go after, but a really bad case to do it with.

Yeah.....son of a biatch.

Makes you want to go out and smack somebody, doesn't it? Finally somebody'll get those bastards....D'oh! Maybe not. Shit!

Honestly, I can't imagine a world where Hustler doesn't apply to private individuals if the information is public and viewed through web content. Or even print. Can't use strong negative opinion or hyperbole utilizing public information about individuals or identifiable groups without liability?

We'd all be wearing muzzles. Can you imagine Current Events? The Flame Zone? Noooooo....!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

Or trying to claim millions for looking up their website. Which is why I keep coming back to this being the wrong case. Right people to go after, but a really bad case to do it with.

Yeah.....son of a biatch.

Makes you want to go out and smack somebody, doesn't it? Finally somebody'll get those bastards....D'oh! Maybe not. Shit!

Honestly, I can't imagine a world where Hustler doesn't apply to private individuals if the information is public and viewed through web content. Or even print. Can't use strong negative opinion or hyperbole utilizing public information about individuals or identifiable groups without liability?

We'd all be wearing muzzles. Can you imagine Current Events? The Flame Zone? Noooooo....!!!!

Where's Eric Rudolph when you need him.

We need a guy like him that hates fake Christians with bad hairdos. BOOM

 

[goldcatt]

Yeah.....son of a biatch.

Makes you want to go out and smack somebody, doesn't it? Finally somebody'll get those bastards....D'oh! Maybe not. Shit!

Honestly, I can't imagine a world where Hustler doesn't apply to private individuals if the information is public and viewed through web content. Or even print. Can't use strong negative opinion or hyperbole utilizing public information about individuals or identifiable groups without liability?

We'd all be wearing muzzles. Can you imagine Current Events? The Flame Zone? Noooooo....!!!!

Where's Eric Rudolph when you need him.

We need a guy like him that hates fake Christians with bad hairdos. BOOM

I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Makes you want to go out and smack somebody, doesn't it? Finally somebody'll get those bastards....D'oh! Maybe not. Shit!

Honestly, I can't imagine a world where Hustler doesn't apply to private individuals if the information is public and viewed through web content. Or even print. Can't use strong negative opinion or hyperbole utilizing public information about individuals or identifiable groups without liability?

We'd all be wearing muzzles. Can you imagine Current Events? The Flame Zone? Noooooo....!!!!

Where's Eric Rudolph when you need him.

We need a guy like him that hates fake Christians with bad hairdos. BOOM

I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing.

Believe it or not...I have about 100 college credits. Here's the real kicker. I majored in Journalism and was studying to be a Paralegal when that didn't go the way I wanted.

My school's Journalism Department [San Diego State Unv] lost it's accreditation. Then when I was studying Paralegal a lawyer told me he wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have tits and wear a dress. I have tits...but I'm not about to put on a dress.